Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Scientific American's Top 50 75

Posted by Hemos
from the advancements-in-science dept.
dptalia writes "It's that time of year again, where everyone is putting out their best of 2006 lists. Last week, Popular Science did it, and today, Scientific American has released their top 50 list. Of note are improvements in RFID technology, discoveries in nantechnology, and net neutrality."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Scientific American's Top 50

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Summaries (Score:3, Interesting)

    by MollyB (162595) on Monday November 13, 2006 @01:09PM (#16825086) Journal
    I just got my copy of the actual magazine yesterday, and I still haven't given it the time to do more than scan it in general. It IS much too long for a summary, even if only two or three were briefly highlighted.

    Of course, if you wish to read the whole shebang online, it's there. I don't think it is the natural meat & potatoes of typical slashdot fare.

    Maybe there are newsworthy items in the list, but many compilations of "things achieved" necessarily have that Yesterday's News feeling. And no, you aren't asking for too much; you don't want the camel's nose in the tent, though.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, 2006 @01:24PM (#16825312)
    "Scientific American" missed the most important technological development: a revamped Slashdot web page.

    By the way, has anyone noticed that "Scientific American" (SA) changed radically over the last 16 years. SA once rather appealed to the technical elite, and you can discern the elitism from the nature of the advertisements and the article format. They included ads about advanced microscopes for tumor analysis, the latest minicomputers, chemical spectro-analysis instruments, etc. As well, the titles of the articles were set in a modest font, and the pictures were dull and conservative.

    SA now resembles "Omni" [wikipedia.org]. The ads include sun-tan lotion, motorbikes, STP oil, etc. The titles of the articles are set in a flashy font, and the pictures are gaudy. What happened to this journal? It degenerated from a journal into a banal magazine -- a sort of "National Enquirer" for the sciences.

    The last article that I read in SA was written by the Dr. Ronald Bracewell, the god-father of 3-dimensional fourier analysis. That article is dated almost 16 years ago.

  • Much more fun... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) (613870) on Monday November 13, 2006 @01:52PM (#16825726) Journal
    Get people predict the important stories of 2007 and then come back in a year to compare predictions. That'd sort out the real gurus and pundits from the wannabes.
  • by east coast (590680) on Monday November 13, 2006 @02:06PM (#16825938)
    Not to question the integrity or sincerity of some of the "top 50" but I was expecting more of a top 50 in advancement instead of simply advocacy. While it is important that the public be informed on issues of a scientific nature to better understand there impact on the world around them I don't find it as noteworthy as people producing real solutions instead of simply putting their weight behind a movement.

    I'm kinda borderline on this whole thing.

From Sharp minds come... pointed heads. -- Bryan Sparrowhawk

Working...